Jump to content

Talk:Jeff Kennett/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

1. Can anybody include information about case-mix system ??. Thanks in advance.

2. Northland Secondary College (Preston) was one of the 100's of state schools closed by Jeff Kennett in 1992. The school's Koori community supported students in taking their case to the High Court and EOC and they won. The school was re-opened in 1995. Kennett's government also closed Richmond Secondary College and a community campaign fought Kennett over this too. These events should be included.

I added some information about the closure of Northland Secondary College by Kennett with a heading State School Closures.

State School Closures 1992. The Kennett government closed Northland Secondary College amongst other state schools. The school was internationally and nationally renowned for its innovations in Koori education and high retention rates for Aboriginal students. Two students went to the Supreme Court and the Equal Opportunity Commission where it was ordered re-opened after a number of appeals. The closure breached the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act. The Kennett government's immediate response was to amend the Victorian Constitution so that the Supreme Court - and all State courts - could never again review any future decision to close a school, ever. Kennett's decisions reflected his values- placing economic priorities over a child's right to a public education. Kennett announced that, beating them - the two Koori students - was a crucial test of his right to govern, he said: "Equal opportunity . . . was always intended to be about the rights of individuals, and not to second-judge government policy." < Source: http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/great/grt3b.html Article Title: Moira Rayner Former Vic Commissioner for Human Rights talks about the Northlands Struggle.> 20 June 2013 - A writer named 101.112 43 62 did an edit removing a sentence and replacing it. It would be better to leave the original sentence. The sentence you want to insert could be added, but the original one should be left. 101.112 43 62 is probably well read, their knowledge of Australian history would be greatly enhanced by reading every thing about the Northland Secondary College closure, and about Northland Secondary College - Mobile Rebel School, starting with the court documents and findings.Irmgarde (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Irmgarde Irmgarde (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Herald Sun vs The Age

The Age is not Melbourne's leading daily newspaper.

It sells under 200,000 newspapers a day. The Herald Sun sells more than 550,000 newspapers a day.

The Herald Sun has a greater readership in both metro Melbourne and country Victoria.

It is highly regarded among business, political and social circles as the paper of record and influence in this state.[dubious – discuss]

To write The Age is the "leading daily newspaper reflects the bias of the author writing profiles on this site.

Of course, I work for the Herald Sun and am proud to do so.

Actually it's a trashy tabloid rag and spent seven years sucking Kennett's toes. Adam 23:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Second that. The Herald Sun is a Murdoch rag and it is popular with business because it is unfailingly biassed and right wing and it has an influence because it has a lot of readers, or photo and headline browsers anyway. But it's low level intellectually and to say it's highly regarded socially and politically is entirely false. Yet it is false to say the Age is Melbourne's leading daily newspaper because the terms of comparison aren't defined. It's just the best quality and most imparitial:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinmo (talk • contribs) 11:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Third that. The HS is a trashy sports paper with next to no credibility and clearly right-wing as reflected by itself in many of its user polls, as well as its papers on election day encouraging people to vote Liberal (Australian major right-wing party). - Oke2206 18:48, 16/02/2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oke2206 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In defence of the Herald Sun

Although I agree with Adam Carr's comment on the trashy-ness of the Herald Sun 100%, the definition of leading daily newspaper is not (last time I checked) the least trashy one. The no-brainer definition would be the highest circulating newspaper, which makes the Herald Sun Melbourne's leading daily.

I personally wish it was the other way around, but this is not the place to argue that point, this place is for the facts. Bambul 07:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i strongly disagree with calling the age "the leading paper" and i will remove that title unless someone can show me that it is the leading paper of a city which also has Australia's most popular paper. Xtra 06:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The text of the article has been changed to "...A leading Melbourne daily...". I am personally satisfied with that. Bambul 05:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
that was me. i thought it would sattisfy both sides. Xtra 04:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whether a paper "leads" or not is a function of its quality, not its circulation. The Age, a genuine quality paper and politically independent, is vastly more influential in Melbourne than the Hun, a trashy tabloid and predictably Liberal on every issue. The same could be said of the New York Times v the Post, or the Times of London v the News of the World. Adam 03:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i dissagree. IMO the herald sun is quality ( btw the age is hard to read). the age is not as neutral as you say that it is. there is no way you can say that the age is more influential when the herald sun has far more than double the number of readers as the age. i can tell from your language that you personally do not think highly of the herald sun. 500,000 melburnians disagree with you. as such, the title of the leading paper cannot be sustained. Xtra 03:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will, with difficulty, refrain from sarcastic comment about why Xtra might find the Age hard to read. Xtra's simply reiterates that the Hun must be regarded as "leading" because it has a bigger circulation. But trashy tabloids always have bigger circulations than quality papers. Is the Sun really London's "leading" newspaper, when it is nothing but tits-and-bums trash? Most Hun readers buy it for its sports coverage (which is excellent), and pay little attention to its political coverage (except maybe Andrew Bolt, who is a good read). By contast people buy the Age specifically to read its political coverage and commentary, which influences everyone else in the media, politicians, academics and opinion-leaders generally. Adam 03:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes adam. i am a simple person who doesnt like long words and newspapers that are larger than my table. i read the herald sun because it uses easy to understand words and the articles are not so long. Xtra 03:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of any way of responding to that which doesn't sound rude and sarcastic, and you know how much I hate being rude and sarcastic. So I will just say that in the light of what you have said about your reading habits, I am no longer surprised at your inability to engage with the points I have been making. I suggest you buy a bigger table. Adam 03:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference to "a leading Melbourne daily newspaper". The Age is one of only three daily newspapers -- and one of those is a commuter giveaway. One has a higher readership, another claims a higher "AB" readership. Describing The Age as "leading" in such a small field is absurd and meaningless.Grimhim 04:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we just describe The Age as "Melbourne's leading insolvent Newspaper with a circulation largely built on giving away copies to schools and Melbourne Football Club members"? That sounds about accurate to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.41.203 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Herald Sun is better, Kennett was better than Bracks...

Read title. Lol. The Herald Sun is a tabloid; 'tis easier to read than the filthy (the ink!!!), rag-like Age newspaper. The HS is smaller and thus can be read anywhere - even on-the-go - while The Age requires you to sit down at a desk/table the size of a football field! (and yes, I am biased; being a proud Capitalist!). Also, the articles are of (almost) equal length in both newspapers, so whoever said that they weren't is wrong. Also, yee who say that the Age is 'independant and unbiased': WRONG! lol. Finally, shouldn't this argument be on the newspaper's individual pages, and not on the article for My Lord His Holiness Sir Jeff Kennett The Great? ZPMMaker 10:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC) PS: Steve Bracks sucks.

This post clearly shows the intelligence of the readers of 'Australia's most popular paper'. Tom O. 18.53, 16 Feb 2013 (AEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oke2206 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

POV omission

There is an omission that results in a POV. The author does not mention that the previous Government's debt was the underlying cause of Kennett's cost-cutting measures. Until it is shoen a)that no debt existed and b) Kennett's efforts were not in response to this, I will keep rectifying this omission.

I have changed thewording, but still included statements to the effect that Kennett's fiscal actions were a result of previous government, this was originally omitted, resulting in the implication that Kennett had alterior motive.

To say that it was a direct result of the previous government also conceals any alterior motives that he DID have. Alterior doesn't mean "bad" either. I am not implying that it was a cold grab for cash, just that the conservative push at the time was to privatise, be it to increase competition, settle debts or outsource responsibility it doesn't matter... To say "previous Government's debt was the underlying cause of Kennett's cost-cutting measures" is oversimplifying the situation and creating a new POV issue.

Throwing sand

On the ABC news a couple nights ago they were saying something about kennet, and they showed some clips off the things he did while premier (i'm assuming) and one of them involed him throwing shovelfuls of sand over the media. 0_o . does anyone know why he did this?

It happened on May 29, 1996 at the ground-breaking ceremony for the CityLink tollway project in Swan St. Kennett, who was becoming increasingly cranky at continuing media criticism of his arrogance, threw four spadesful of sand at photographers and cameramen covering the event. Guests laughed and the Herald Sun and SBS threatened to bill him for the damage to equipment (the lens of a $50,000 TV camera was among those damaged). Letters in the Herald Sun in the next few days were scathing of the behaviour of not only Kennett but those who laughed at media people -- who, of course had been invited by the Premier's media unit to cover the event -- having sand thrown at them while they carried out their work. The incident was a potent symbol at the time of the tense relationship between Kennett and the media.Grimhim 03:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

POV changes

Harro5, your clumsy efforts have done nothing to improve this article. This is a butchery, not an improvement. You have trampled over and erased the most recent events in the Kennett story. Thanks, pal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimhim (talk • contribs)

  • This doesn't help. My objections are all reasonable, my changes all positive setps forward. Please discuss specific concerns rather than use wholesale reverting. Thanks. Harro5 11:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Your obliteration of the dramatic events of the last two days, as contained in the Kennett article, is sufficient reason to revert. You seem obsessed with demanding citations for generally accepted political developments. Take the time to examine these things one at a time without trampling over the contributions to this article in the last 36 hours. Your revert has compounded your initial clumsiness.Grimhim 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"Accepted political developments" cannot just be added into an encyclopedic entry. Who has stated them publicly and in the media? Where is the references to confirm this? As for the recent events in Kennett's considered return, it is all covered in the Rumoured returns to politics section, but it is now fully referenced. Wikipedia is not written on perceived commonly-accepted views; it is written in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Thanks. Harro5 22:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the new Return to Politics section, which solves the problem and restores the events you had deleted. I remain baffled by the claim that the article breaches WP neutrality standards, and your search for citations for such matters as Labor being defeated because of its handling of Victoria's economy. Is this part of your POV objections, or do you wish to clutter the article by inserting media references to every single political development?Grimhim 23:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to ensure that this article does not become a biased history of Kennett's reign, and so I am asking for some sources for specific claims. Of course, I don't think we need to cite why Kennett lost the election in 1999, but I'll list some examples of problems (this isn't exhaustive):

  1. "the Liberals were considered a good chance of winning the 1988 election": considered by whom? Have we got poll numbers to refer to? A political historian's findings? This would solve the problem.
  2. "Kennett described Alan Hunt, the instigator of the coup, as 'a man never to be trusted'": this quote is surely mentioned in a book of Kennett, or an article on his career.
  3. "he allowed his supporters to stage a party-room coup": this probably should be cited.
  4. "the Labor government [in 1992] which was held responsible for the state's economic and budgetary": needs sources saying who was blaming the govt, or showing it was a widely held view.
  5. "Kennett immediately instituted one of the most radical budget-cutting and privatisation programs undertaken by any Victorian government": could be worded to sound less critical. One of the most radical is a terrible phrase for an encyclopedia.
  6. The entire paragraph about the changes Kennett brought in. "At the same time, positive reforms were made in state education...": well, who decides what were positive or negative reforms? Just state what happened.
  7. "Industrial relations reforms reduced the influence of the trade unions." I don't dispute that this is likely true, but can we have more specifics on how influence was reduced, as opposed to a sweeping statement.
  8. "previously sought by small-l liberals and parliamentary reformers." It never bodes well with NPOV to brand people's views like this.
  9. "Critics pointed out that the Kennett government was claiming credit for external factors such as improving national economic indicators, and that states that had not undergone similar radical reforms also saw economic improvement." Who are these 'critics'? This is too 'un-named sources say...' at present.
  10. "There were many allegations of corruption in the [Crown Casino] tendering process for the casino, but no impropriety was ever proved." Just a source making such allegations will suffice.
  11. "During his second term, however, the public began to tire of what was seen as his arrogant and confrontationist style." Everyone in Victoria knows this is a true statement of political history, but for Wikipedia it should be supported by a specific claim. The events of the last few days will surely address Kennett's perceived flaws in media articles.
  12. "The Age newspaper, which had supported Kennett in 1992 and 1996, turned against him." Awful wording, as it has strong POV. The facts are right but a re-write is needed here.
  13. "While Labor remained weak and leaderless, it offered little challenge to Kennett's dominance of Victorian politics." In whose eyes is this a true statement? This definetely needs a reference. Remember, no original research means no editorialising.
  14. "On the morning of the election a leading political journalist, Ewen Hannan, predicted that 'Labor supporters will be crying into their beers tonight'." Just a source will do.
  15. "The defeat of the Kennett Government was almost totally unexpected, and was regretted by those who had admired the government's bold reforms, which had restored Victoria's fiscal credibility, stemmed the fall in its population growth rate and revived its economic growth. Critics argued that Kennett's radical programme had damaged the social infrastructure through the reduction in government services, particularly in regional areas, and that this, added to the perception of some that Kennett was arrogant, had led to his downfall." Yikes! This makes a lot of biased statements without sources, and should be re-written with references or deleted.
  16. The last paragraph of the 1999 election defeat section is probably OK, but could use a cited quote from Jeff about not returning to politics in future.

Hopefully Grimhim you now see where I am coming from in my objections. This is a very substantial list of complaints, and I would strongly oppose removing the POV-section tag (at the very most, replace it with {{verify}}) until some improvements are made. Thanks. Harro5 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I do see where you're coming from. Thanks for spelling out your concerns. However your desire for references or citations (many of which may be a tall order) don't justify the tag claiming the Kennett article breaches WP's neutrality standards. As the WP POV page says, "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views". I see no conflict; there's certainly none in the discussion page and little evidence of any series of changes or reverts on the main page from contributors disputing claims made in the article. This being the case, the "disputed" tag should be removed.Grimhim 01:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hawthorn player?

There's no mention of this on either the official AFL site or the official Hawthorn site - which is a curious omission for a club president. Can anyone find a source for this? Lokicarbis 23:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems like absolute nonsense to me. I will check my copy of the club history soon and delete the reference if necessary. Mustard Pot 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See below. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've checked the VFL/AFL players' dictionary and the Tony Parkinson biography 'Jeff', and in neither do they mention him actually playing for Hawthorn. I've removed the offending section as a result (something I originally did anonymously some years back, before it appeared again - probably written by the same person). I thought the old claim that someone played for X club was a thing of the past! 11:55, 2 February 2008 - rjscu1

Birth date

Where did 25 July 1948 come from? All the sources I’ve ever seen say he was born 2 March 1948 - Vic Parliamentary website, Victorian Parliament Chronology, etc. (After some digging) Ah, I see what’s happened now. This edit from an unregistered editor who obviously likes vandalism, was made back in October 2006, and the incorrect birth date has been there ever since. I’ll be correcting it.

This editor was also responsible for the misinformation about him playing for Hawthorn - see this diff. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether this is worth mentioning in the article (it's info of the type that would have gone in one of those frowned-on "trivia" sections), but Jeff Kennett is one of the roll-call of celebrities mentioned in the song "Welcome" by Aussie band The Church, off their 1996 album Magician among the Spirits. Grutness...wha? 13:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Life after politics

Some lawyer has removed information I inserted about the covering of Kennett's premiership after his retirement. The Australian did recently pick up on some relatively favourable comments made in Victoria, ergo satisfies WP:BIO, and needs to be mentioned given his history with the media.

Was this an oversight or something? Ottre 13:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the daily news and the coverage post-2005 was of a very trivial (and occasionally slanted) nature indeed. This is a biography, as the top of this page states, is covered by the Biographies of living persons policy. The claim that something "indicated the history of his premiership is being rewritten" was only the personal opinion of the contributor and therefore also needed to be removed.
As for lawyer... I only studied first year. Orderinchaos 09:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually an indirect direct quotation:

New Jeff is determinedly self-effacing. "I don't think so," he says to the suggestion that history will record him as a giant of the Victorian scene. "No, you don't worry too much about bloody history." However that is being rewritten as we speak. Broadcaster Neil Mitchell wrote recently that... The Australian a week earlier opined that "NSW needs a Jeff Kennett" to cure its woes. Surely this must amuse the man himself...

...So my "editorial opinion" wasn't entirely correct, but still shouldn't have been flat-out deleted. Certainly needs to be mentioned that, when asked about the media coverage, he said he still considers the introduction of the ticketing system a "disaster", right? Bear in mind the magazine article being used as a source is distributed to every RACV member in the country. Ottre 21:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been a couple of weeks now without a response, so I'm going to go ahead and restore. Ottre 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the sacked Boonie Doon trainer, Jeff actually worked at trying to have the Trainer reinstated. [1] His comments were taken out of context. He was talking about Perceived duty of care rather then comparing "homosexuality to paedophilia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.135.5 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Rumoured return to politics

I made an edit in the said paragraph. When it said that he had withdrawn from the race for the Liberal Leadership I changed it to not to reenter Parliament. Kennett was deciding whether he would want to return to politics, saying that he had withdrawn would imply that he had already made his decision to return but changed his mind later on. I also changed when it said about him challenging Ted Baillieu to run against him. The word "challenge" should only be used in context to a serving leader as the word means that the leader's authority is being questioned hence the challenge. Ted Baillieu was not yet the leader and the word 'challenge' did not apply to him at this point in time. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sacking public transport employees

When Kennett came into power, he got an agreement with Lou Di Gregirio of the Australian Motor Omnibus and Tramway Employee Association (ATMOEA) that the tramways would accept redundancy packages. This was in contrast to the other transports unions who opposed it. Di Gregirio said at the time that he had members who wanted the opportunity to take a package. After the trammies took the package offered, members from the railways also took the opportunity to leave with a redundancy package. To say Kennett sacked 16,000 is not accurate as many of my friends took packages and walked away with a handy lump sum. Purrum (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's true that not all were sacked. But equally, they weren't all simply offered redundancy with nice packages. Kennett used many strategies to get rid of public servants. That whole section is very poorly sourced, and really needs a total rewrite. For the moment, unless you can find a source we can quote or paraphrase, how about we move to "...the elimination of 16,000 public transport jobs..." ? HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Or the more politically correct ... the rightsizing of public transport Purrum (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha. Given that every party leader since Kennett has consistently promised to add more of everything to public transport (not saying they delivered), I think you would be struggling to justify that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
not at all, same number of staff, same lousy service, therefore the size is right Purrum (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Massive POV/CRUFT should be deleted

I recommend restoring my edits. This article is filled with POV and cruft. I did not think they would require community consensus but it is what it is. Also, why no mention of the psycho who assaulted him (Fergal Downey)?? Quis separabit? 04:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

When I looked at your edits I was just overwhelmed by the scale of them. Obviously you've put a lot of work into them, but they're so comprehensive that it's not easy to just sit back and say "Yeah, that's fine." It would have been wiser to bring your concerns to this Talk page, with a little more depth than "This article is filled with POV and cruft", than to so dramatically change the article in one fell swoop. Any chance you could discuss it now? What exactly were your concerns? What do you want to remove? What do you want to add? HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess sometimes I am too bold. Quis separabit? 16:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
In this case, I think so. Please note that I'm not objecting to (nor approving) the content of your edits. I simply haven't been able to absorb them yet. Do you reckon you could summarise your concerns and proposed changes in a few sentences here? HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess the following would be some examples of text which are more emotive and synthetic than encyclopaedic (one unsourced and the others ostensibly sourced, but not necessarily reliable):
  • "Kennett was an unexceptional student academically, but did well in Scotch's Cadet Corps Unit. His failure to rise above the middle band academically almost led him to quit school in Fourth Form (Year 10 – 1963), but he was persuaded to stay on. His Fifth and Sixth Forms were an improvement, but he was still described in school reports as "[a] confident and at times helpful boy. Sometimes irritates. Sometimes works hard" (1964), and "[a] keen, pleasant, though sometimes erratic boy" (1965)."
  • "– kindling an interest for advertising that would one day earn him his living."
  • "Kennett survived easily, but increasingly, he seemed an erratic and unapproachable leader."
  • "A furious Kennett described Alan Hunt, the instigator of the coup, as "a man never to be trusted" [citation needed]. He publicly pledged never to attempt a return to the Liberal leadership, but when Brown proved unable to challenge the government effectively, he allowed his supporters to stage a shock party-room coup and restore him to the leadership, unopposed, in 1991.
  • "While the benefits to the State budget figures were indisputable, the social and longer-term economic cost of the Kennett reforms was questioned by many commentators, academics and those who suffered economically through the period of reform." Quis separabit? 00:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Attack by Downey

The attack on Kennett by psycho Fergal Downey, who was later convicted and sentenced to 24 years for killing a man with a hammer should be included, no? Quis separabit? 01:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"His wife left him...."

There has just been a tiny Edit skirmish over the removal of the text "His wife left him for a short time in the mid 1970s, amid allegations of domestic violence, but returned a short time later." It was first done with no Edit summary, and since the text was sourced, I reverted. Mattinbgn reverted my revert with the Edit summary ""amid allegations of domestic violence" is sleazy weasel words. This is a BLP and better evidence is required for claims of this nature)". I agree to some extent about the "sleazy weasel words" comment, but the source, a printed book we obviously don't have easy access to, is also used as a source for many other sections of the article. I don't like sources like that in general, but it is used for this article. This opens a bit of a can of worms. Is everything else sourced to that book OK? HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 'Everybody' knew about the situation between Jeff Kennett and his wife as described here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irmgarde (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Kennett Revolution

"Moreover, in the first three years of the 'Kennett Revolution' (as the Premier himself came to term it)"

I have yet to find any reference anywhere ever to Kennett himself terming his own thing as "The Kennett Revolution".

This is just bullshit. It's unworthy of wikipedia. Author needs to cite reference now or it needs to be deleted.

D.R. du Prie 20:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

School Closures

Re: Jeff Kennett School Closures. I don't really understand what is wrong with the source of information. A contributor named St Anselm keeps deleting the facts I enter about School Closures. Do you all need to be given the title and education qualifications for Gary Foley or are you able to do your own research? (Now I remember I gave these to St Anselm previously) People are able to manage reading and discussing more than one point of view whether they agree with it or not.(and in this case the info is from a reliable source) I think I said the same thing a couple of years ago, have you had the opportunity to expand your education on this subject? I've got a hard copy of the Court documents. I worked with all the staff, students, parents,families, teachers and principals involved. I met the lawyers and Edn Dpt staff.

If I called myself a writer and I had letters after my name would it be acceptable to Wikipedia for excerpts from my publications to be used?

My biases were formed within a family with these letters and titles, some of whom spoke 5 languages; Professor of Politics and Doctor of Economics; Professor of Education; Chief Geologist MPESA, MGSA.; B.S.,M.A.Hons., M.Econ., B.A.F.A.Adv.DipEd Sec Art., B.Sci., Postgraduate Diploma in Urban Planning, M.Th.. Been to the top and the pits. Not that this is entirely relevant to my entry. 

 (~~solarpowa~~)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarpowa (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have removed it once again per WP:BLPREMOVE. The main issue is with your sourcing. You have a "15" in the text, but you need a proper footnote. It doesn't come from this site, which is currently footnote 15 in the article - although I'm sure you could find some useful material there. Instead, you have copied text directly from this site, without properly acknowledging it, and that is a copyright violation. Next, regardless of Foley's qualifications, kooriweb.org is a self-published website, and is not a reliable source by wikipedia standards. Finally, the bit about "Kennett's decisions reflected his values" is not from the site but seems to be your personal opinion. StAnselm (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeff Kennett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeff Kennett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeff_Kennett/Archive_1&oldid=1136839048"